Their rights to toys Trumps our right to not get shot by some moron who's outraged that his favorite parking place is being occupied by an ambulance.

(May 12, 2017 at 4:45 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: Their rights to toys Trumps our right to not get shot by some moron who's outraged that his favorite parking place is being occupied by an ambulance.

THANK YOU, now will all the far right firearm blind loyalists listen to Gawdzilla HE OWNS FIREARMS TOO.

And again, when I bring up my family history of anxiety and depression, and they read how I even cuss people out here, the first thing I ask them is if they would trust me with a firearm. And they RIGHTFULLY say NO!

And all I am pointing out to them is that in most locals, they are fucked because I have no record. Unless  a gun shop owner goes out of their way to vet me mentally, and care about public safety, the laws would not be on their side. I literally CAN go out and buy a firearm RIGHT NOW. The only thing stopping me is ME because I don't want one., because I am self aware of my mental health issues.

(May 12, 2017 at 4:37 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(May 12, 2017 at 4:25 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: "Trust me". Dear Complete Stranger, why should I trust you with a gun?

Agreed, I already told you my family history of mental illness, you'd be right to question me. That is why "Legal at time of buy" isn't enough, because right now, I have no criminal record. 

I trust you from what I have read because you don't flip out like others here when I object to the way things are. And you keep them locked up, and I'd bet you don't brag to everyone in your face to face life about what you own. 

If anyone's argument is "RIGHTS" and "Just because", they completely miss the point because nobody is trying to or should try to ban every single firearm.

Brian, I'm surprised by your comment. 

There's a Philip K. Dick story called Minority Report (made into a bad movie) that posits a society where "precrime" is a punishable offense. A means is devised to determine probability of any individual committing a crime. The surveillance state takes these probabilities and acts on them to arrest and punish people for potentially committing crimes. It's a dystopian story about a police state.

I'm not suggesting that you meant this, but when you say that you have a family history of mental illness, and suggest that should disqualify you from exercising your rights, you're making a very bold statement. It presumes that we are not free to make our own choices and to act in accordance with those choices. You're saying that because you could snap at some point that you should forfeit a right guaranteed you by the Constitution. 

This isn't about just 2A, then. If your argument is real, you could make the same statements about anything. Your very lot in life could be decided based on heritable traits and tendencies. That sounds like genetic stratification, or eugenics. That is terrifying as history proves. 

I appreciate that you enjoy debate and I've been impressed with your statements in other threads. I'm hoping you'll reconsider this aspect of your approach.

Edit -

If your self-assessment is accurate, then it is good of you to acknowledge that the responsibility of gun ownership is not for you. Just because you've decided that you are unsuitable to own guns doesn't mean that no one is. With the millions of guns in this country - the vast majority of which will never do harm to any person (statistics prove this) - it truly is the exception when some slob does something horrible with a gun to themselves or others. There are 300+ million people in the USA. A fraction of those own guns. A very small fraction of those use guns to harm others other than in self-defense. Applying your individual situation to the vast majority of law-abiding citizens is wrong.

It's like climate-change deniers who confuse daily weather with long term climate. Yes, the weather changes day-to-day. The long view describes the climate. Climate deniers will say, "global warming, eh? how come I got a foot of snow TODAY?"

False dichotomy again. Incorrect understanding of terms.

I have the boy on ignore, but it doesn't work when people quote him. His clutch appears to be slipping, and he should report to the nearest homo sap repair shop for a proper diagnosis and treatment/repair.

(May 12, 2017 at 9:57 pm)Fireball Wrote: I have the boy on ignore, but it doesn't work when people quote him. His clutch appears to be slipping, and he should report to the nearest homo sap repair shop for a proper diagnosis and treatment/repair.

If that were available there would be a two year waiting list to get in.

(May 12, 2017 at 9:24 pm)Nanny Wrote:

(May 12, 2017 at 4:37 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Agreed, I already told you my family history of mental illness, you'd be right to question me. That is why "Legal at time of buy" isn't enough, because right now, I have no criminal record. 

I trust you from what I have read because you don't flip out like others here when I object to the way things are. And you keep them locked up, and I'd bet you don't brag to everyone in your face to face life about what you own. 

If anyone's argument is "RIGHTS" and "Just because", they completely miss the point because nobody is trying to or should try to ban every single firearm.

Brian, I'm surprised by your comment. 

There's a Philip K. Dick story called Minority Report (made into a bad movie) that posits a society where "precrime" is a punishable offense. A means is devised to determine probability of any individual committing a crime. The surveillance state takes these probabilities and acts on them to arrest and punish people for potentially committing crimes. It's a dystopian story about a police state.

I'm not suggesting that you meant this, but when you say that you have a family history of mental illness, and suggest that should disqualify you from exercising your rights, you're making a very bold statement. It presumes that we are not free to make our own choices and to act in accordance with those choices. You're saying that because you could snap at some point that you should forfeit a right guaranteed you by the Constitution. 

This isn't about just 2A, then. If your argument is real, you could make the same statements about anything. Your very lot in life could be decided based on heritable traits and tendencies. That sounds like genetic stratification, or eugenics. That is terrifying as history proves. 

I appreciate that you enjoy debate and I've been impressed with your statements in other threads. I'm hoping you'll reconsider this aspect of your approach.

Edit -

If your self-assessment is accurate, then it is good of you to acknowledge that the responsibility of gun ownership is not for you. Just because you've decided that you are unsuitable to own guns doesn't mean that no one is. With the millions of guns in this country - the vast majority of which will never do harm to any person (statistics prove this) - it truly is the exception when some slob does something horrible with a gun to themselves or others. There are 300+ million people in the USA. A fraction of those own guns. A very small fraction of those use guns to harm others other than in self-defense. Applying your individual situation to the vast majority of law-abiding citizens is wrong.

It's like climate-change deniers who confuse daily weather with long term climate. Yes, the weather changes day-to-day. The long view describes the climate. Climate deniers will say, "global warming, eh? how come I got a foot of snow TODAY?"

False dichotomy again. Incorrect understanding of terms.

Holy crap, nobody is suggesting Orwell's 1984 or even "Minority Report"........

Prevention is not the same as presumption of guilt. You have to go to medical school to get a degree. You are NOT presuming the person making the attempt to get the degree is evil, you are simply insuring they can handle the job.

"Legal at time of buy" does not insure that the person walking into your gun shop does not have any problems at time of buy. Vetting to insure the wrong people don't get firearms is NOT taking away anyone's rights. 

If you are a business owner, you don't simply hire anyone, you make the attempt to look at their record of work history and get references. Nobody would want an airline to hire someone for the position of pilot who never took flying lessons.

Here in the UK the police don't even need guns

(May 13, 2017 at 2:35 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: Here in the UK the police don't even need guns

That's because you Limeys are wusses! A good cussin' scares the bejesus outta ya.

(May 13, 2017 at 2:35 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: Here in the UK the police don't even need guns

"Armed officers! Come out with your hands  up!" 

(May 13, 2017 at 2:35 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: Here in the UK the police don't even need guns

Not true, but for the vast majority yes.

Same in Japan. The worst the cops in Japan have to worry about for the most part are a fist. And despite what some might think Japan does not ban guns. The difference is that Japan doesn't treat guns like porn.